@Danny - Did you play solo, or with a group? If you remember, would you mind posting how many clans were used in each game, and which clans? I have the Kickstarter and am going to be setting up some demos / leagues, so I'd like to know what to watch out for.

If you have the time, I'd really like to hear which parts of combat you felt bogged down the most, or could be improved on. How long did each game take? How long (approximate) did each combat take (per player, or per model, whichever you think is relevant). Was the repetitiveness due to lack of cool abilities on the minis?

They developed a really cool submission website for the Super Dungeon Explore beta testing for version 2.0 right now, I'm thinking of some of the questions we could answer here to get back to the developers / deciders.

Danny, its fair to note what you've pointed out as your major problem is the whole polarizing issue with the game. Some people love the combat, others don't. I for one would give the game a solid 8 or 9 out of 10, as it has some flaws, but I find the combat very fun. This game is really polarizing though when it comes to opinions... unlike SPM's other games, like Relic Knights and SDE, which are both primarily seen as disappointing when it comes to rules (or, at least, SDE:FK).

_________________Remember, even if you do not see me, I am always watching...waiting for my moment to write.

@Danny - Did you play solo, or with a group? If you remember, would you mind posting how many clans were used in each game, and which clans? I have the Kickstarter and am going to be setting up some demos / leagues, so I'd like to know what to watch out for.

If you have the time, I'd really like to hear which parts of combat you felt bogged down the most, or could be improved on. How long did each game take? How long (approximate) did each combat take (per player, or per model, whichever you think is relevant). Was the repetitiveness due to lack of cool abilities on the minis?

They developed a really cool submission website for the Super Dungeon Explore beta testing for version 2.0 right now, I'm thinking of some of the questions we could answer here to get back to the developers / deciders.

I'll say that I'm on the opposite side of this argument than the OP. This particular opinion was a while big :"Thing" a while back when the game was first coming out. My anecdotal observation about people that felt this way tended to be that the folks who were disappointed in the combat system were approaching this game as though it were a wargame though.

When someone treats this game like a wargame, they feel underwhelmed. But, this makes sense as this isn't a wargame. The game is very objective oriented. One of the main reasons some folks have a problem, I think, is that the "default" scenario, in the instruction book, is "brawl". Having this as the beginner scenario both gives the impression that fighting is super important and exposes a new player to the most boring scenario. A large number of people don't even allow brawl, as a scenario, in their leagues. It's that bad.

So, ultimately it's based on personal opinion. But, that opinion seems to be heavily influenced by how one is introduced to the game. When you demo, I Would seriously avoid the brawl scenario. Probably do capture the medal instead. That gives the players an actual goal, and shows the value of a broader range of models on a team. If the person you're demoing it to knows about, is a fan of, or even plays Blood Bowl, equate it to that for them because this game is very clearly inspired by Blood Bowl.

To address combat, and how slow or fast it is specifically. It's really not that bad. If you are unfamiliar with how it works (or for those reading who aren't) when one model attacks another, each model uses their relevant stat (attack or defense) and rolls dice equal to that stat. Each die has 6 elemental results. once both sides roll their dice, opposing elements (water vs fire, void cs spirit, and air vs earth) on opposing sides "cancel" each other out one for one. Meaning is one side has a fire result, and the other side has a water result, both those dice are removes from the results. once all these cancellations happen the side with the most dice (or the attacker, in the case of equal dice) chooses an element from their own, remaining dice. The chosen element determines the result of combat. Some results are good for the attacker, some are good for the defender, some are either relatively neutral or situationally advantageous. It's really not a long process. It is jsut a little long to very new players who may not have any of the cancellations or results memorized yet. Once most players get a game or two under their belt, they will be able to remember how cancellation works and most of the elemental results. Things speed up considerably.

Ultimately, as a big fan of blood bowl myself, I think this is a really good game. It should defiantly be played as a league, with teams gaining experience, whenever possible It's a much stronger game in that scenario. It's got some balance issues. But they are relatively minor, I believe. I have a thread that compiles some house rules (viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5090) that help cover some of the areas that may be lacking or somewhat arbitrary. But, even without any of the house rules, the game works quite well.

If you have any other questions about demoing or anything, feel free to ask them. I actually think this is one of the best ND titles at the moment and a, for lack of a better term, deceptive presentation has caused a lot of people to be turned off by it. So demos need to dispel and avoid that.

while demoing, dont use Ijin or the void clan. For players who dont game that often, you might consider using the shrine teams. For more experienced gamers, the named clans aren't that much harder to use after one game. And as posted above, avoid brawling. The crate scenario has some unclear rules, which should be clarified to the players beforehand. King of the hill, capture the medal or even the house-ruled sneak scenario all work really good in showing off the strength of the system. not as a combat game, but as a tactical game with choices in positioning and different approaches to winning. Make it clear to the players that taking out the opponent is not a going to win the game, most of the time.

I've ran three demos for Ninja All-Stars and received very positive feedback from all of the attendees. My format:

Up to 4 players, let them pick one of the six Shrine ninja teams, King of the Hill scenario. Reduce the max on-board team size a bit if scheduled time is an issue. Optionally put a few shrines within tossing distance of the center, but I don't find this necessary.

Show the benefits of non-injury results. For example, toss one enemy ninja into the middle of a group of other enemy ninja and say "see I just locked down two opponents with one toss, now they're fighting in an non-scoring section of the table." Most players pick up on this after one solid example.

To be honest this is far from my favorite game, however big chaotic group matches are hilarious and it draws in a crowd. So I'll keep running it at local conventions.

*The clans have gross imbalance which make them basically unfair and cause people to instantly divest themselves. Makes new people who choose the cool looking clan quickly upset and want to quit when they chose the 'suck' clan.*Combat is pre-determined before dice roll. Seems to reduce a lot of the 'point' to people. Forcing a loser to roll a dice when they have no chance to save themselves, makes them go 'fine, you win because you flanked me, just get it over with'*Dice cancellation mechanic is a quirky thing which slows down gameplay, serves no real purpose and isn't intuitive. Could totally go away and no one would care.*Some of the game types are not fun.

I wouldn't recommend new players play with anything but shrine ninjas. Equal is Equal. If your opponent gets you with something you can learn and get them right back with the same thing.

Even then, it is sometimes a hard sell. 'Killing' has been a core mechanic for games for a long time. Even in Blood Bowl, you can choose to play teams where you win by putting opponents in the injury box if that is what you like to do. And if your opponent wants to play tactics or finesse, they can. This game basically says 'you can smash heads, but you will lose!' which doesn't appeal to some.

I keep seeing comparisons to Bloodbowl, but they all fail. Bloodbowl is an amazing game with proven track records. Trying to trick people into thinking they will like it because they like Bloodbowl just disappoints people even more when they see it clearly isn't Bloodbowl.

*Combat is pre-determined before dice roll. Seems to reduce a lot of the 'point' to people. Forcing a loser to roll a dice when they have no chance to save themselves, makes them go 'fine, you win because you flanked me, just get it over with'*Dice cancellation mechanic is a quirky thing which slows down gameplay, serves no real purpose and isn't intuitive. Could totally go away and no one would care.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you even tried, absolute BS.

*Combat is pre-determined before dice roll. Seems to reduce a lot of the 'point' to people. Forcing a loser to roll a dice when they have no chance to save themselves, makes them go 'fine, you win because you flanked me, just get it over with'*Dice cancellation mechanic is a quirky thing which slows down gameplay, serves no real purpose and isn't intuitive. Could totally go away and no one would care.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you even tried, absolute BS.

Crude but true. I've played the game quite a bit now. While it is true that the person with the most dice (or attacker in ties) almost always gets to choose the results from their dice. This is far from a guarantee of "winning" the attack. It just skews the odds in the favor of the one with the most dice.

It's not "common" per se. But, 2 or 3 times a game, usually, the one with less dice will see results in their favor. While this isn't common, the occurrence of it can really cause some game upheaval, if it happens at the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) time. If every attack was 50/50 when it was made, with the nature of the game being tactical, not battle, there would be no combat at all. The whole point of combat is to not engage in it at a disadvantage if at all possible.

If you are claiming the game is objectively bad because one, subjectively, doesn't prefer the way the game is played than you are wrong. That's like saying chess is objectively bad because you tried to move your pieces into a pretty pattern, and lost because of it. Or that you lost at battle tech because no one is willing to talk it out with you. When a game isn't primarily an army versus army combat game, the mechanics and tactics are not going to support people playing it like an army versus army combat game. You can not like the game for it not being what you prefer to play. That's reasonable and expected. Saying that things in the game are wrong and bad because they don't conform to your preferred style of game is just sophistry.

*Combat is pre-determined before dice roll. Seems to reduce a lot of the 'point' to people. Forcing a loser to roll a dice when they have no chance to save themselves, makes them go 'fine, you win because you flanked me, just get it over with'*Dice cancellation mechanic is a quirky thing which slows down gameplay, serves no real purpose and isn't intuitive. Could totally go away and no one would care.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you even tried, absolute BS.

Crude but true. I've played the game quite a bit now. While it is true that the person with the most dice (or attacker in ties) almost always gets to choose the results from their dice. This is far from a guarantee of "winning" the attack. It just skews the odds in the favor of the one with the most dice.

It's not "common" per se. But, 2 or 3 times a game, usually, the one with less dice will see results in their favor. While this isn't common, the occurrence of it can really cause some game upheaval, if it happens at the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) time. If every attack was 50/50 when it was made, with the nature of the game being tactical, not battle, there would be no combat at all. The whole point of combat is to not engage in it at a disadvantage if at all possible.

If you are claiming the game is objectively bad because one, subjectively, doesn't prefer the way the game is played than you are wrong. That's like saying chess is objectively bad because you tried to move your pieces into a pretty pattern, and lost because of it. Or that you lost at battle tech because no one is willing to talk it out with you. When a game isn't primarily an army versus army combat game, the mechanics and tactics are not going to support people playing it like an army versus army combat game. You can not like the game for it not being what you prefer to play. That's reasonable and expected. Saying that things in the game are wrong and bad because they don't conform to your preferred style of game is just sophistry.

The problem is, this 'fumble' where the person with the advantage rolls 'Void yathzee' happens so statistically infrequently it makes you ask if it really is worth messing with the cancelling mechanic across 60 rolls for something which might happen once in every 216 roll.

It would be like playing chess, and every move you roll 3 dice, and if you roll three 1s, the defender wins. That doesn't add tactics, it doesn't add depth, it doesn't make the game better. And people identify this in the first 10minutes of playing as they have a 4th grade math education and understand basic odds.

Lots of testing has been done where you simply remove dice matching mehanic, and use Bloodbowl mechanics and the odds are relatively similar and it is way faster and intuitive. (especially to people you attempt to trick into playing this game by comparing it to Bloodbowl)

But let's say the dice was a mechanic handed down from a divine being, and SPM is decades ahead of their time with dice mechanics...

It doesn't matter because the clans are grossly unbalanced. If you want a fair game, it is shrines or bust.

Math says the rules fail, People don't like the game in large numbers in lots of gathered areason the net... Real flaws are identified and have documented evidence supporting it to the point where TWICE internet mathhammers have forced SPM to re-write dice mechanics for their games... And it is all combated by Lizardman trolling "Nu uh, SPM games are perfect, you playing it wrong and don't matter!'

If you use shrine ninja, play party game missions and use BB dice rolling rules, the game becomes downright fun and tactical. If there are 'suggestions' to people who have a stinky game no one wants to play and they want to convince people, that is what I would suggest opposed to just yelling at them to 'just like rules better!!! You clearly don't know how to like good rules!'

The problem is, this 'fumble' where the person with the advantage rolls 'Void yathzee' happens so statistically infrequently it makes you ask if it really is worth messing with the cancelling mechanic across 60 rolls for something which might happen once in every 216 roll.

It would be like playing chess, and every move you roll 3 dice, and if you roll three 1s, the defender wins. That doesn't add tactics, it doesn't add depth, it doesn't make the game better. And people identify this in the first 10minutes of playing as they have a 4th grade math education and understand basic odds.

Lots of testing has been done where you simply remove dice matching mehanic, and use Bloodbowl mechanics and the odds are relatively similar and it is way faster and intuitive. (especially to people you attempt to trick into playing this game by comparing it to Bloodbowl)

But let's say the dice was a mechanic handed down from a divine being, and SPM is decades ahead of their time with dice mechanics...

It doesn't matter because the clans are grossly unbalanced. If you want a fair game, it is shrines or bust.

Math says the rules fail, People don't like the game in large numbers in lots of gathered areason the net... Real flaws are identified and have documented evidence supporting it to the point where TWICE internet mathhammers have forced SPM to re-write dice mechanics for their games... And it is all combated by Lizardman trolling "Nu uh, SPM games are perfect, you playing it wrong and don't matter!'

If you use shrine ninja, play party game missions and use BB dice rolling rules, the game becomes downright fun and tactical. If there are 'suggestions' to people who have a stinky game no one wants to play and they want to convince people, that is what I would suggest opposed to just yelling at them to 'just like rules better!!! You clearly don't know how to like good rules!'

I tried being reasonable and actually having a discussion. The only response was a bunch of logical fallacies, appeal from authority, appeal from a perceived majority, things like that. Then finishes off by presuming they speak for everyone with "a stinky game no one wants to play", which is a self defeating "argument" as you are talking to people who want to play it. The only option left is that you are only on this forum to troll and not to actually discuss things. You make claims with no proof. You claim you have proof but provide none. Then you insult people for daring to enjoy a well made game because it's not made how you want it to be. There's no reason for you to be here unless your only goal is to try and piss people off because you're bored. You clearly have no interest in this game. You clearly have no interest in learning why people like it. You only want to rile people up and spout your rhetoric about it. So, you have fun trying to troll. We will have fun playing games.

Well, the state of the game here in Vienna is dead on arrival. A few people i know kickstarted the basic copy, but there is no way of ordering stuff from stores here, no new releases, no support, nothing.

On the community side of things, some people are waiting for the german language version to one day hit shelves, hopefully with a better support (as in, you can actually buy stuff!), but the people who have played it have all set it aside quickly in favor of better-designed rulesets like MK3, Malifaux on the tabletop side, guild ball or Imperial Assault on the skirmish side.

My personal opinion is actually muted positive, I sort of liked a few things they did, and I know SPM never makes balanced games, so I didnt expect them to (RK taught me that).

Sadly, it seems impossible to raise any kind of interest due to the widespread opinion it is just a very expensive, bad game. At least so far I have not had a SINGLE person out of over 20 people trying it that said they would want to play it more, let alone spend money on it.

We did, we played 2 leagues, but interest just wanes quickly due to balance issues, the somewhat extreme randomness of the dice system, and what seems to be to most people are very unsatisfying time-to-fun ratio (the game takes a long time).

Maybe they ll release a revised edition at some point, or extensive errata, to fix the problems. I love the miniatures, and personally can also dig the RK-style "its not about killing" approach, it just seems that the vast majority of gamers here isnt interested in that at all.

@Danny - Did you play solo, or with a group? If you remember, would you mind posting how many clans were used in each game, and which clans? I have the Kickstarter and am going to be setting up some demos / leagues, so I'd like to know what to watch out for.

If you have the time, I'd really like to hear which parts of combat you felt bogged down the most, or could be improved on. How long did each game take? How long (approximate) did each combat take (per player, or per model, whichever you think is relevant). Was the repetitiveness due to lack of cool abilities on the minis?

They developed a really cool submission website for the Super Dungeon Explore beta testing for version 2.0 right now, I'm thinking of some of the questions we could answer here to get back to the developers / deciders.

I'll say that I'm on the opposite side of this argument than the OP. This particular opinion was a while big :"Thing" a while back when the game was first coming out. My anecdotal observation about people that felt this way tended to be that the folks who were disappointed in the combat system were approaching this game as though it were a wargame though.

When someone treats this game like a wargame, they feel underwhelmed. But, this makes sense as this isn't a wargame. The game is very objective oriented. One of the main reasons some folks have a problem, I think, is that the "default" scenario, in the instruction book, is "brawl". Having this as the beginner scenario both gives the impression that fighting is super important and exposes a new player to the most boring scenario. A large number of people don't even allow brawl, as a scenario, in their leagues. It's that bad.

So, ultimately it's based on personal opinion. But, that opinion seems to be heavily influenced by how one is introduced to the game. When you demo, I Would seriously avoid the brawl scenario. Probably do capture the medal instead. That gives the players an actual goal, and shows the value of a broader range of models on a team. If the person you're demoing it to knows about, is a fan of, or even plays Blood Bowl, equate it to that for them because this game is very clearly inspired by Blood Bowl.

To address combat, and how slow or fast it is specifically. It's really not that bad. If you are unfamiliar with how it works (or for those reading who aren't) when one model attacks another, each model uses their relevant stat (attack or defense) and rolls dice equal to that stat. Each die has 6 elemental results. once both sides roll their dice, opposing elements (water vs fire, void cs spirit, and air vs earth) on opposing sides "cancel" each other out one for one. Meaning is one side has a fire result, and the other side has a water result, both those dice are removes from the results. once all these cancellations happen the side with the most dice (or the attacker, in the case of equal dice) chooses an element from their own, remaining dice. The chosen element determines the result of combat. Some results are good for the attacker, some are good for the defender, some are either relatively neutral or situationally advantageous. It's really not a long process. It is jsut a little long to very new players who may not have any of the cancellations or results memorized yet. Once most players get a game or two under their belt, they will be able to remember how cancellation works and most of the elemental results. Things speed up considerably.

Ultimately, as a big fan of blood bowl myself, I think this is a really good game. It should defiantly be played as a league, with teams gaining experience, whenever possible It's a much stronger game in that scenario. It's got some balance issues. But they are relatively minor, I believe. I have a thread that compiles some house rules (viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5090) that help cover some of the areas that may be lacking or somewhat arbitrary. But, even without any of the house rules, the game works quite well.

If you have any other questions about demoing or anything, feel free to ask them. I actually think this is one of the best ND titles at the moment and a, for lack of a better term, deceptive presentation has caused a lot of people to be turned off by it. So demos need to dispel and avoid that.

I actually came into this game treating it like a wargame, and I really enjoy it as do others in my group. We primarily play Infinity and Bushido so this is a happy blend of several concepts I am very familiar with.

But it's a fun game even when approached from a wargamers perspective.

Games just aren't going to appeal to everybody. There's enough negative reviews at this point (and a lot of people complaining that these reviewers just don't get it) that you should know what you're getting into when you play this. If you want a faster game, you'll either have to house-rule or sell your game off.